Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27834899›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2016

Major Natural Disasters in China, 1985-2014: Occurrence and Damages.

Weixiao Han, Chen Liang, Baofa Jiang, Wei Ma, Ying Zhang

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reproductive health ignorance in disasters: A qualitative study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Floods in China, COVID-19, and climate change.The Lancet. Planetary health · 2020
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Urban Resources Selection and Allocation for Emergency Shelters: In a Multi-Hazard Environment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Weixiao HanDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shandong University, 44 West Wenhua Road, Jinan 250012, China. 201413942@mail.sdu.edu.cn.
Chen LiangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shandong University, 44 West Wenhua Road, Jinan 250012, China. cliang10@jhmi.edu.
Baofa JiangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shandong University, 44 West Wenhua Road, Jinan 250012, China. bjiang@sdu.edu.cn.
Wei MaDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Shandong University, 44 West Wenhua Road, Jinan 250012, China. weima@sdu.edu.cn.
Ying ZhangClimate Change and Health Center, Shandong University, 44 West Wenhua Road, Jinan 250012, China. ying.zhang@sydney.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to describe the characteristics of natural disasters and associated losses from 1985 to 2014. The Mann-Kendall method was used to detect any long-term trends and abrupt changes. Hotspot analysis was conducted to detect the spatial clusters of disasters. We found an increasing trend in the occurrence of integrated natural disasters (

Indexed as

ChinaDisastersHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st Centurychanging patternsChinahotspotsMann-Kendall trend testnatural disastersspatiotemporal

Identifiers

PMID27834899
PMCPMC5129328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.